occupies a surface area of 4.95 m², and four in the other, in a space of no more than 6.44 m² – or else a waiting zone is reserved for them, installed in what was initially a waiting room for passengers of 200 or 250 m², with its inevitable plate glass windows overlooking the tarmac, where they remain during the day, and sometimes also at night; these are cold in the winter and very hot in the summer, with limited facilities (no drinks dispenser note the inspectors in one inspection): such is the case at Strasbourg International Airport and at Paris Orly Airport. At Orly however, at night, persons “held” are taken to a hotel open to the public, in which twelve rooms are reserved for foreigners: at the time of the inspection, the doors had to remain ajar all night, with complete disregard for privacy, with police officers stationed in the hallway. At Cayenne – Rochambeau Airport, the whole of the international zone is open to persons held, who obviously cannot leave and sleep on the seats that are there. Whatever the situation, and the length of stay, a common point in all of these premises is the denial of any access to the open air f or persons held there, even for a few minutes 45. It is not always easy to make contact with officials: there is neither any video surveillance (which is not a measure called for by the Contrôleur général) nor any intercom: at Lyon, persons held have to bang on the door (a traditional feature in aeternum of deprivation of liberty in French territories) in order to call the guard. Dependence with regard to the managing authority. The public authorities have a responsibility to impose standards of comfort upon the legal entity which, nolens volens, provides accommodation for foreigners refused entry, with regard both to the work of their personnel and the conditions in which persons are held. All aspects of border control and the areas of competence pertaining thereto need to be taken into account at the time of signature of occupancy agreements; including national provisions with regard to surface area per person, supply of goods (meals service within the Aéroports de Paris airports authority), ventilation of premises and cleaning. It would be preferable for minimum standards, such as those that exist for detention centres for illegal immigrants 46, to be defined by statutory means. Officials interviewed are in general little informed with regard to what they can or cannot obtain. At the time of one inspection, the officials did not know what company was charge d of cleaning or what expectations they might have in this respect. Activities are provided for on a minimal basis (at Orly, there is one television for a large waiting room47, and nothing more), even though the presence of children, though not frequent, is far from being an exceptional occurrence (sixty-six for the year 2009 at Orly). 2.1.2.2.3 Relations with Carriers Article L. 213-6 of the CESEDA provides that expenses incurred for taking care of persons “held” during the time preceding their removal are payable by the carriers. The spirit of the law is that the latter should have taken the precautions necessary in order to avoid embarking foreigners lacking the documents necessary for their entry into France. This spirit might be thought rather harsh, but this provision is relatively old, and has never been seriously called into question. Routines should therefore be established in order to ensure that persons “held” are not victims of prevarication or hesitation on the part of transport companies with regard to meeting the expenses that the law requires them to pay: the Contrôleur général has come across situations in which distribution of meal trays to foreigners and cleaning of premises is carried out in a rather lax manner, either because of general ill will or vague procedures. The local officials were obliged to intervene as best they could in these difficult circumstances. Relations with the carriers which, with a few exceptions, are major companies, should be properly 45 Contrary to the provisions made at Roissy (inspection report, op. cit.). Article R.553-3 of the CESEDA. 47 At the time of the inspection, it broadcast the six traditional terrestrial channels. 46 28